Wirral Council – Admits That Council Tax Is Unlawful And Sets A Legal Precedent.

[Scott Sando]

This is how you deal with police officers who have stopped you without probable cause

I LUV IT

If you want to know how to protect yourself from wrongfull arrest

video 2

video 3

THIS IS IMPORTANT INFO

[Guest absolutezero]

Your quote is from Magna Carta.

EDIT: MC originally had this provision "In future we will allow no one to levy an 'aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied." It was removed from the later editions. If the original is still in force, a lot of state theft is dubious.

The Bill of Rights is interesting in the Parliament cannot amend it without the consent of all the countries that have the Queen as head of state.

p-o-p

Pity we've changed with the times....

[injustice]

Ok, here it is.

Highlights in red.

Bill of Rights

1688 c.2 1_Will_and_Mar_Sess_2

Click to open Introductory Text

An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne.

Whereas the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Comons assembled at Westminster lawfully fully and freely representing all the Estates of the People of this Realme did upon the thirteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty eight present unto their Majesties then called and known by the Names and Stile of William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange being present in their proper Persons a certaine Declaration in Writeing made by the said Lords and Comons in the Words following viz

The Heads of Declaration of Lords and Commons, recited.

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.

Dispensing and Suspending Power.

By Assumeing and Exerciseing a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without Consent of Parlyament.

Committing Prelates.

By Committing and Prosecuting diverse Worthy Prelates for humbly Petitioning to be excused from Concurring to the said Assumed Power.

Ecclesiastical Commission.

By issueing and causeing to be executed a Commission under the Great Seale for Erecting a Court called The Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes.

Levying Money.

By Levying Money for and to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner then the same was granted by Parlyament.

Standing Army.

By raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary to Law.

Disarming Protestants, &c.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

Violating Elections.

By Violating the Freedome of Election of Members to serve in Parlyament.

Illegal Prosecutions.

By Prosecutions in the Court of Kings Bench for Matters and Causes cognizable onely in Parlyament and by diverse other Arbitrary and Illegall Courses.

Juries.

And whereas of late yeares Partiall Corrupt and Unqualifyed Persons have beene returned and served on Juryes in Tryalls and particularly diverse Jurors in Tryalls for High Treason which were not Freeholders,

Excessive Bail.

And excessive Baile hath beene required of Persons committed in Criminall Cases to elude the Benefitt of the Lawes made for the Liberty of the Subjects.

Fines.

And excessive Fines have beene imposed.

Punishments.

And illegall and cruell Punishments inflicted.

Grants of Fines, &c. before Conviction, &c.

And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.

Recital that the late King James II. had abdicated the Government, and that the Throne was vacant, and that the Prince of Orange had written Letters to the Lords and Commons for the choosing Representatives in Parliament.

And whereas the said late King James the Second haveing Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby Vacant His [ X1 Hignesse] the Prince of Orange (whome it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious Instrument of Delivering this Kingdome from Popery and Arbitrary Power) did (by the Advice of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and diverse principall Persons of the Commons) cause Letters to be written to the Lords Spirituall and Temporall being Protestants and other Letters to the severall Countyes Cityes Universities Burroughs and Cinque Ports for the Choosing of such Persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parlyament to meete and sitt at Westminster upon the two and twentyeth day of January in this Yeare one thousand six hundred eighty and eight in order to such an Establishment as that their Religion Lawes and Liberties might not againe be in danger of being Subverted, Upon which Letters Elections haveing beene accordingly made.

The Subject’s Rights.

And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare

Dispensing Power.

That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.

Late dispensing Power.

That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.

Ecclesiastical Courts illegal.

That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious.

Levying Money.

That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall.

Right to petition.

That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.

Standing Army.

That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.

Subjects’ Arms.

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

Freedom of Election.

That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free.

Freedom of Speech.

That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

Excessive Bail.

That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted.

Juries.

That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned . . . F1

Grants of Forfeitures.

That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.

Frequent Parliaments.

And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently.

The said Rights claimed. Tender of the Crown. Regal Power exercised. Limitation of the Crown.

And they doe Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into Consequence or Example. To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly encouraged by the Declaration of this Highnesse the Prince of Orange as being the onely meanes for obtaining a full Redresse and Remedy therein. Haveing therefore an intire Confidence That his said Highnesse the Prince of Orange will perfect the Deliverance soe farr advanced by him and will still preserve them from the Violation of their Rights which they have here asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Rights and Liberties. The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at Westminster doe Resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdomes and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princesse dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the sole and full Exercise of the Regall Power be onely in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the Names of the said Prince and Princesse dureing their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the Heires of the Body of the said Princesse And for default of such Issue to the Princesse Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body And for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince and ( X2 ) Princesse to accept the same accordingly.

New Oaths of Allegiance, &c.

And that the Oathes hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whome the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy be abrogated.

Allegiance.

I A B doe sincerely promise and sweare That I will be faithfull and beare true Allegiance to their Majestyes King William and Queene Mary Soe helpe me God.

Supremacy.

I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

Acceptance of the Crown. The Two Houses to sit. Subjects’ Liberties to be allowed, and Ministers hereafter to serve according to the same. William and Mary declared King and Queen. Limitation of the Crown. Papists debarred the Crown. Every King, &c. shall make the Declaration of 30 Car. II. If under 12 Years old, to be done after Attainment thereof. King’s and Queen’s Assent

Upon which their said Majestyes did accept the Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging according to the Resolution and Desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said Declaration. And thereupon their Majestyes were pleased That the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the two Houses of Parlyament should continue to sitt and with their Majesties Royall Concurrence make effectuall Provision for the Setlement of the Religion Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe of being subverted, To which the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons did agree and proceede to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the Premisses the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled for the ratifying confirming and establishing the said Declaration and the Articles Clauses Matters and Things therein contained by the Force of a Law made in due Forme by Authority of Parlyament doe pray that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come. And the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous Providence and mercifull Goodness to this Nation to provide and preserve their said Majestyes Royall Persons most happily to Raigne over us upon the Throne of their Auncestors for which they render unto him from the bottome of their Hearts their humblest Thanks and Praises doe truely firmely assuredly and in the Sincerity of their Hearts thinke and doe hereby recognize acknowledge and declare That King James the Second haveing abdicated the Government and their Majestyes haveing accepted the Crowne and Royall Dignity [ X3 as] aforesaid Their said Majestyes did become were are and of right ought to be by the Lawes of this Realme our Soveraigne Liege Lord and Lady King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose Princely Persons the Royall State Crowne and Dignity of the said Realmes with all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully rightfully and intirely invested and incorporated united and annexed And for preventing all Questions and Divisions in this Realme by reason of any pretended Titles to the Crowne and for preserveing a Certainty in the Succession thereof in and upon which the Unity Peace Tranquillity and Safety of this Nation doth under God wholly consist and depend The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe beseech their Majestyes That it may be enacted established and declared That the Crowne and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms and Dominions with all and singular the Premisses thereunto belonging and appertaining shall bee and continue to their said Majestyes and the Survivour of them dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the entire perfect and full Exercise of the Regall Power and Government be onely in and executed by his Majestie in the Names of both their Majestyes dureing their joynt Lives And after their deceases the said Crowne and Premisses shall be and remaine to the Heires of the Body of her Majestie and for default of such Issue to her Royall Highnesse the Princess Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body and for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of his said Majestie And thereunto the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe in the Name of all the People aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submitt themselves their Heires and Posterities for ever and doe faithfully promise That they will stand to maintaine and defend their said Majesties and alsoe the Limitation and Succession of the Crowne herein specified and contained to the utmost of their Powers with their Lives and Estates against all Persons whatsoever that shall attempt any thing to the contrary. And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same [ X4 And in all and every such Case or Cases the People of these Realmes shall be and are hereby absolved of their Allegiance] And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons soe reconciled holding Communion or Professing or Marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead [ X5 And that every King and Queene of this Realme who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeede in the Imperiall Crowne of this Kingdome shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament next after his or her comeing to the Crowne sitting in his or her Throne in the House of Peeres in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled or at his or her Coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the Coronation Oath to him or her at the time of his or her takeing the said Oath (which shall first happen) make subscribe and audibly repeate the Declaration mentioned in the Statute made in the thirtyeth yeare of the Raigne of King Charles the Second Entituled An Act for the more effectuall Preserveing the Kings Person and Government by disableing Papists from sitting in either House of Parlyament But if it shall happen that such King or Queene upon his or her Succession to the Crowne of this Realme shall be under the Age of twelve yeares then every such King or Queene shall make subscribe and audibly repeate the said Declaration at his or her Coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such King or Queene shall have attained the said Age of twelve yeares.] All which Their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present Parliament and shall stand remaine and be the Law of this Realme for ever And the same are by their said Majesties by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled and by the authoritie of the same declared enacted and established accordingly

Link

[piece of paper]

Pity we've changed with the times....

The question is, has the law?

p-o-p

[Scott Sando]

Ok, here it is.

Highlights in red.

Link

If you read the Bill of Rights and understand (STAND UNDER) it you we see how this applies

This is how you deal with police officers who have stopped you without probable cause http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHqpuVetLeo...re=channel_page I LUV IT

If you want to know how to protect yourself from wrongfull arrest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkVe2-3eZ34...re=channel_page video 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBK_gQgB1p8...re=channel_page video 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQuylgA_aqM...re=channel_page THIS IS IMPORTANT INFO

[interestrateripoff]

No more than my post. The council tax was set up by an Act of Parliament, so it can't be unlawful.

What about if they didn't inform the EU? Like with the farce over video age restrictions?

[Guest Barebear]

And when they lock you in a cell kicking and screaming, then what?

Well of course I wouldn't recognise that either.

Thats why my whole pi$$ take statement of the nobleman/freeman principle is worthless. Just as worthless as the freeman principle we're talking about.

All this quoting the magna carta is all very well but there must have been tons of amendments since then ratified by our governments or sovreigns.

Somewhere in that will be my right to keep a goat on my property, but if I live in a block of flats I would not be able to keep a goat. So would the freeholder then be breaking the law by denying me my right and therefore be open to arrest on complaint to the Police ?

[injustice]

And when they lock you in a cell kicking and screaming, then what?

You notify the relevant authorities with a scale of charges, (prior to doing anything unlawful) say:

Detention £50 per hour.

Arrest £100 per hour.

Imprisonment £5000 per day.

etc etc

So you are pulled for something,

Like this guy

He was detained, arrested, imprisoned, and released without charge. He could send the police force a bill for £££££, then if unpaid, County Court Claim, let a proper judge decide whether or not the police accepted his contract.

Edited September 4, 2009 by injustice

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

You notify the relevant authorities with a scale of charges, (prior to doing anything unlawful) say:

Detention £50 per hour.

Arrest £100 per hour.

Imprisonment £5000 per day.

etc etc

So you are pulled for something,

Like this guy

He was detained, arrested, imprisoned, and released without charge. He could send the police force a bill for £££££, then if unpaid, County Court Claim, let a proper judge decide whether or not the police accepted his contract.

I think you meant to write, 'before being detained for a non-crime'

[Guest absolutezero]

The question is, has the law?

p-o-p

Quite probably.

Magna Carta has probably been superseded by EU law.

It's all very well saying "Magna Carta can't be repealed" until it is.

[1929crash]

Quite probably.

Magna Carta has probably been superseded by EU law.

It's all very well saying "Magna Carta can't be repealed" until it is.

It's not EU law which has superceded Magna Carta. It's home grown laws like the Terrorism Acts and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced ASBOs.

[Guest absolutezero]

It's not EU law which has superceded Magna Carta. It's home grown laws like the Terrorism Acts and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced ASBOs.

Even better!

The superceding comes from inside!

[injustice]

As far as I can tell, the bill of rights is still in force, it is still on the statute book. If the bill had been repealed, it would have been removed. It would not make any logical sense to introduce a new statute (rule) that directly contradicts an existing rule, you must first rescind the original rule.

Rule 1---You must not run in the playground.

Rule 2---You must always run in the playground.

That's why the new "fines" are called fixed penalties, a fine has to be imposed by a court, not a government agency.

[piece of paper]

Quite probably.

Magna Carta has probably been superseded by EU law.

It's all very well saying "Magna Carta can't be repealed" until it is.

Here's Lord Justice Laws' take

"We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or ( enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and ( are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998."

"Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature's actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible."

To be found here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/195.html

If the 'original' Magna Carta has not been specifically repealed, it is still the law. Nobody has yet shown me specific legislation that repeals the original charter.

p-o-p

[gavp]

If the 'original' Magna Carta has not been specifically repealed, it is still the law. Nobody has yet shown me specific legislation that repeals the original charter.

p-o-p

There's a list of the repealing acts on the Wikipedia page on the Magna Carta.

[piece of paper]

There's a list of the repealing acts on the Wikipedia page on the Magna Carta.

Those repeal sections of the 1297 version.

p-o-p

[blankster]

The whole 'freeman on the land' idea is utter claptrap, as is the idea that government, the courts etc. are companies.

It's a bit like if I decided to call myself a motoring libertarian and ignore speed limits and red traffic lights. I can call myself that as much as I like but it wouldn't help me in court, would it? Just because one pressure group decides to redefine reality, that doesn't mean that the real reality is any different.

We are ALL slaves under this system. The moment your birth is registered, you become a private corporation and you are unilaterally entered into contract with the state.

In every country in the world this is the case, except perhaps Somalia, where the power vacuum has allowed alternative and very nasty 'systems' to grow and flourish. Edited September 4, 2009 by blankster

[gavp]

Those repeal sections of the 1297 version.

p-o-p

Which superseded the previous versions.

[piece of paper]

Which superseded the previous versions.

At risk of repeating myself, Laws LJ explained that this type of legislation cannot be superseded unless it is specifically stated in the new law. The 1297 version of the MC does not do this.

Laws LJ, as previously posted said -

"Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature's actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible."

p-o-p

[gavp]

I doubt you'd get very far with that line of argument. The Magna Carta 1297 is the one on the statute book not the earlier versions. Basically you're arguing that we can use modern legal conventions to go back and reinterpret the law of the middle ages to decide that they were wrong then to assume the 1297 version superseded previous versions, and therefore subsequent generations were wrong to use the 1297 version as statute law and not the original version. Do you think a judge would buy it?

[piece of paper]

I doubt you'd get very far with that line of argument. The Magna Carta 1297 is the one on the statute book not the earlier versions. Basically you're arguing that we can use modern legal conventions to go back and reinterpret the law of the middle ages to decide that they were wrong then to assume the 1297 version superseded previous versions, and therefore subsequent generations were wrong to use the 1297 version as statute law and not the original version. Do you think a judge would buy it?

The alternative would seem to be that the Runnymede meeting which this country is so proud of might has well have been tea and cakes on the vicarage lawn.

As it happens, I have not had reason to argue this but I would like to see a reasoned argument against it. I don't think that your post addresses it. We do rely on the law of the middle-ages. What's wrong with that?

I am not saying that the 1297 'release' is wrong, merely that one can still rely on the original. The two (or more) can run in parallel. It is for the Courts to decide which one prevails but they have to justify the decision. Laws LJ has fettered them in this respect.

p-o-p

[doahh]

I doubt you'd get very far with that line of argument. The Magna Carta 1297 is the one on the statute book not the earlier versions.

The MC1215 is a common law document that forms part of the constitution of the UK which is why it is not on the statute book. The MC1297 is the statute version of the MC1215 with a couple of alterations (mainly the removal of article 61 - the right to lawful rebellion). The MC1297 is a statute rule that is simply a private rule of the society of the UK (see the bit about trust documents below). This is essentially the freeman argument, that if I leave the society of the UK then your society's rules do not apply to me, i.e. statute rules do not apply. Look at the order of creation:

Human Beings => Common Law => Society => Parliament => Statute Rules => Citisens affected by statute laws

Human Beings created Common Law and it is common law that allows the creation of society's. Common Law comes before Statute rule and so overrides it - IMO.

and therefore subsequent generations were wrong to use the 1297 version as statute law and not the original version. Do you think a judge would buy it?

The 'subsequent generations' were not wrong as such. As far as I understand it the MC1215 is a trust document that human beings can stand under as their rules but it is based on common law. The MC1297 is another trust document that human beings can stand under if they so wish to do so. A human being should have a choice under which trust he stands (he can even create his own) and the rules of that trust are the ones that apply to that man. As long as the trust document does not violate common law then there should be no problems. When the two trusts interact (a parson from the MC1215 interacts with a person from the MC1297 trust) then it should be no different to the way people from different countries interact.

I expect the reason for the names of these trusts being so similar is to confuse people into thinking that they still stand under the MC1215 when in fact they do not unless they explicitly state that they do. We are told the rules of our society by birth and we follow them by conditioning, by following Statute rules we are assumed to be standing under the MC1297 which is a Statute Trust and then punished according to those rules if we break them. The argument of the Freeman is that they should be able to stand under another trust and have their rights and beliefs upheld - the right to freedom of religion, though and belief is given in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has been ratified by the UK which is the MC1297 trust. In theory they should therefore allow people to stand under the MC1215 trust if they so wish to do so.

This is very similar to the way people have been cheated into thinking that fiat currency has value other than that of a promise to pay. As we know promises can be broken but if the money was backed by a commodity then it would always have value. A similar con that has been used with money has been used with law. The issuance of law is now in the hands of private individuals (The Law Society of England and Wales - The Law Society of Scotland) and is not in the hands of the people as Common Law was. I am not a member of the Law Society and so why should I follow their rules? I gave the example of a knitting society earlier, if I set up the Knitting Society and you were not a member why should you follow the rules of my Knitting Society? It is the same argument with the Law Societies. The only people who should follow the rules of the Law Society (who create 'our' Statute rules) are members of the Law Society and maybe the people who stand under the MC1297.

Edited September 5, 2009 by doahh

[huw]

The government do not have my permission to act on my behalf and therefore to have authority over me they must use force. If they are using force then I have a duty to fight back, we apparently live in a free society, but are we free to leave that society? For me that is one of the main arguments of the Freeman.

You are giving them implicit permission by remaining on the territory they control (admittedly they control it by force). But you are free to make an end of whatever obligations they claim from you by leaving the UK, though they could still pursue you for obligations claimed from previous years.

The ability to walk away rules out the "we're slaves" argument as far as I'm concerned.

[Stars]

You are giving them implicit permission by remaining on the territory they control (admittedly they control it by force).

You just admitted his point

He claimed their control of him was through force, and you conceded his point (above). Then you claim he is wrong, that their control isn't a matter of force.

[doahh]

You are giving them implicit permission by remaining on the territory they control (admittedly they control it by force). But you are free to make an end of whatever obligations they claim from you by leaving the UK, though they could still pursue you for obligations claimed from previous years.

The ability to walk away rules out the "we're slaves" argument as far as I'm concerned.

I have to agree with Star's answer.

Additionally, I think you are making the mistake that because a society exists in a particular location then that location belongs to the society. If my fictional Knitting Society met on a piece of common ground ('common' as in common law) then that would not make the land mine - it is shared between the people and can be used for whatever needs they have (such as grazing cattle). In the same way, just because the society of the UK exists in England, Scotland and Wales does not mean the society owns the land. The society is not the land, it is a construct of man and that is the only place it exists - in the mind. You can not point to society - you can only point to a building, a person or a lake. The society does not exist outside the mind of the person (whether that person is a human-being or a dog - remember that person is a class of life, that which has personality and not just a human-being as I think is often assumed).

Edited September 5, 2009 by doahh